Do Machine Learning Approaches Perform Better than Regression Models in Mapping Studies? A Systematic Review.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.010
Tianqi Hong, Shitong Xie, Xinran Liu, Jing Wu, Gang Chen
{"title":"Do Machine Learning Approaches Perform Better than Regression Models in Mapping Studies? A Systematic Review.","authors":"Tianqi Hong, Shitong Xie, Xinran Liu, Jing Wu, Gang Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify how machine learning (ML) approaches were implemented in mapping studies, and to what extent ML improved performance compared with regression models (RMs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in 12 databases from inception to Dec-2023 to identify studies that applied ML to develop mapping algorithms. A data template was applied to extract dataset information, source and target measures, ML approaches and RMs, mapping types (direct vs. indirect), goodness-of-fit indicators (mean absolute error [MAE], mean squared error [MSE], root mean squared error [RMSE], R-squared, and intraclass-correlation coefficient [ICC]), and validation methods. Differences in goodness-of-fit indicators between ML and RMs were summarized. Potential advantages and challenges for ML were further discussed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>13 mapping studies were identified, in which both ML and RM were adopted. Bayesian networks was the most frequently used ML approach (n=6), followed by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (n=4). Ordinary least square model was the most used RM (n=8), followed by censored least absolute deviation model and multinomial logit model (n=5 each). The average improvement of goodness-of-fit of ML compared with RMs by indicators were 0.007 (MAE), 0.004 (MSE), 0.058 (R-squared), 0.016 (ICC), and -0.0004 (RMSE).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is an increasing number of studies using ML in developing mapping algorithms. Generally, a minor improvement of goodness-of-fit was observed compared with RMs when using mean-based comparisons. Issues such as how to interpret, apply and externally validate the ML-based outputs would affect their implementation. Future studies are warranted to verify advantages of ML approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To identify how machine learning (ML) approaches were implemented in mapping studies, and to what extent ML improved performance compared with regression models (RMs).

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in 12 databases from inception to Dec-2023 to identify studies that applied ML to develop mapping algorithms. A data template was applied to extract dataset information, source and target measures, ML approaches and RMs, mapping types (direct vs. indirect), goodness-of-fit indicators (mean absolute error [MAE], mean squared error [MSE], root mean squared error [RMSE], R-squared, and intraclass-correlation coefficient [ICC]), and validation methods. Differences in goodness-of-fit indicators between ML and RMs were summarized. Potential advantages and challenges for ML were further discussed.

Results: 13 mapping studies were identified, in which both ML and RM were adopted. Bayesian networks was the most frequently used ML approach (n=6), followed by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (n=4). Ordinary least square model was the most used RM (n=8), followed by censored least absolute deviation model and multinomial logit model (n=5 each). The average improvement of goodness-of-fit of ML compared with RMs by indicators were 0.007 (MAE), 0.004 (MSE), 0.058 (R-squared), 0.016 (ICC), and -0.0004 (RMSE).

Conclusion: There is an increasing number of studies using ML in developing mapping algorithms. Generally, a minor improvement of goodness-of-fit was observed compared with RMs when using mean-based comparisons. Issues such as how to interpret, apply and externally validate the ML-based outputs would affect their implementation. Future studies are warranted to verify advantages of ML approaches.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Role of Health Equity in Health Technology Assessment Process in Asia: A Landscape Analysis of 13 Health Systems in Asia. Understanding the economic value of interventions that address perinatal mental health problems: Literature review and methodological considerations. Are Updated COVID-19 Vaccines Still Relevant for all Adult Age Groups? An Economic Evaluation of the Monovalent XBB.1.5 Vaccine in Australia. Capturing the Additional Cardiovascular Benefits of SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Beyond the Control of Traditional Risk Factors in People with Diabetes. Cost-effectiveness of a digitally supported care management program for caregivers of people with dementia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1